Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Pat]

On Aug 1, 5:49 pm, William <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2:28 pm, William <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but
> > > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you
> > > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned
> > > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use
> > > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.
>
> > > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not
> > > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*
>
> > > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE
> > > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH
> > > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS?
>
> > > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction.
> > > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else".
> > > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address
> > > > > that.
>
> > > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike
> > > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get
> > > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might
> > > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really.
>
> > > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football
> > > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school
> > > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just
> > > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's
> > > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because
> > > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is
> > > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is
> > > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at
> > > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9
> > > > > hour bike ride.
>
> > > > I don't blame you, biking works best
> > > > when everything is
> > > > more central and dense like a metro area.
>
> > > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The
> > > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue.
> > > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people,
> > > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in
> > > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1
> > > > > trip.
>
> > > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to
> > > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more
> > > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping
> > > > > by bike.
>
> > > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your
> > > > from nowhere land.
>
> > > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of
> > > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the
> > > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a
> > > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle.
> > > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow
> > > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry
> > > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32
> > > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is
> > > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom
> > > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a
> > > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to
> > > me, because I don't wear a watch.
>
> > > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by
> > > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me.
> > > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the
> > > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.
> > > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But
> > > that's what makes it nice.
>
> > > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the
> > > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's
> > > excitement around here.
>
> > > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to
> > > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each
> > > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each)
> > > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys
> > > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle.
>
> > > So what about this "quality" thing?
>
> > Pat, Walmart is McDonalds department stores. In every way. If you wanna
> > call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull **** out of the
> > city.
>
> To be more specific, ever notice how a lot of things, not
> ALL things but a lot, are a heck of a lot crappier at walmart as
> apposed to the other extreme like William-sanoma or crate and barrel?
> I'm not saying that every place should be as expensive and *high tech*
> for a lack of a better word as those places are. But ever notice how
> theres a lot of poor people at Walmart? I guess you would'nt since
> thats all you have in nowhere land but here in the cities when people
> have more options then the lowest and crappiest, we tend to shoot for
> the happy medium between excessive and contemptible.
>
> I prove via internet: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2403033
>
> Wal*Mart:Lowest Common Denominator
> Look at this cool set of pots and pans and the mounted rack. Only
> 34.32!!!
> But in reality,look at cheap and thin the metal on the cooking
> utensils and the pots is. Don't expect those to get through a
> thanksgiving dinner....
>
> Kohls: A Happy Mediumhttp://www.kohls.com/products/product_page_vanilla0.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3E...
> A good medium, not to bad it gets the job done. 170$ is pretty
> reasonable, closer on the low end of things but again it will get the
> job done.
>
> William-Sonoma: When brains collide with class and stlye Bet you don't
> have one of these at "The Rez" do you Pat?http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku9639873/index.cfm?pkey=cck...
> 600 dollars and just for the pots. Yea I would say this would out live
> the competition in ever way by a large margin. Still, nothing to there
> 1,400$$$ one. ttp://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku8991465/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti
> Hey, you get what ya pay for!
>
> Now, cheap prices may seem all good, but why not just pay a little
> extra for the one that will last?
> (Ahem* because your either poor or have no options or you just have no
> sense of quality)
>
> Now Pat, you may be saying to yourself that those other sets of pots
> are expensive only for more profit, but if that was true, do you
> REALLY think William-Sonoma would still be around?

Umm, eh eh, shhh, but go look again. For Walmart, you compared the
price of the pot RACK to the cost of the pots in the other stores.

Second, I've hear of Kohls but have no idea what they sell. Sorry.
I've never hear of William-whatever and there probably isn't one with
a few hundred miles of here. Sounds like one of those too-much-money
and too-little-brains stores for people who have a cook do their
cooking for them.

$1200 for pots is ridiculous. Anyway, you wouldn't believe the stuff
I use. On the rare occasion that I need to buy cookware, I swing by a
restaurant supply store in Buffalo and get what I need. Strictly
utilization, but great quality. You can beat on the stuff with no
damage. My teflon frying pan, which I use all the time, is probably
over 5 years old and the teflon is still perfect. Oh, and the stuff
is pretty cheap.

My tea pot is from K-Mart and is probably going on 10 years old. It's
Revereware. Great stuff.

What you have to understand about rural areas is the simplicity of the
place. If you wanted $1200 pots, you wouldn't live here. You can get
almost anything you want at Walmart. You just want different things.

Here's a better comparision for you:
http://www.kohls.com/products/produ...LDER<>folder_id=436514383&bmUID=1186080661287
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5673563
But I suppose the ones from Walmart are somehow inherently inferior..

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 3:24 am, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:14:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
> >> them through bike lanes.
>
> >Bike lanes don't have a better safety track record than the roads.
>
> >Go tohttp://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.htmland actually do
> >some reading around the subject.
>
> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.

Bike lanes and thus people riding bikes and saving gas is such
monomaniacal idea. Reasonable people just drive a country to war and
get more oil. They all want to be like Napoleon. Isn't that a clinical
case?

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:08 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> > clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> > take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>
> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
> neighbourhood ;-)

A real possibility for me, like that of you getting killed by
terrorists. Well, they are both terrorists, right?

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:27 am, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for
> > > improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in
> > > places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction
> > > priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety.
>
> > Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes
> > and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more
> > bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100
> > bucks...
>
> Yes the data is based on situations where all the lane markings and
> junction priorities, traffic lights etc are removed. Basically people
> stop driving as if they have a known priority and instead start looking
> out for and avoiding other road users.

OK, either lanes for all or lanes for none. When do we start that
campaign?

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 5:28 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ace wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:08:26 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Ace wrote:
> >>> Alternatively, you could just stop feeding the troll. It's fairly
> >>> clear that he's not listening, and I doubt that anyone will seriously
> >>> take any notice of him, as he's such an obvious monomaniac.
>
> >> Its also fairly obvious he won't be around for long before he gets
> >> killed by one of the many thousands of cyclicidal SUV drivers in his
> >> neighbourhood ;-)
>
> > That'd be a shame.
>
> Or an exaggeration.

Well, *I* exaggerated. My risk of getting killed by road terrorism is
greater, much greater, than you getting killed by the other type of
terrorism.

I saw a bumper sticker today that here is quite revolutionary: SLOWER
TRAFFIC KEEP TO THE RIGHT... AVOID ROAD RAGE! That must be a communist
attempt at bringing regulation to our roads. We want to zigzag if we
please, and drive our SUVs while on the phone if we want, so we can
remain a free nation!

Rage is part of life in the jungle, and the strong shall survive.
Hallelujah!

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 2, 2:21 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>
> > ALL "bicycle lanes" are "separate but equal" facilities; therefore
> > their deficiencies are inherent and do not depend on the quality of
> > the particular implementation.
>
> Are you on drugs or something? Cars are allowed in bike lanes (to
> merge in before turning across them and they are part of a road).
> I've yet to see anyone disparage an HOV lane as a '"separate but equal"
> facility' (a code phrase for what is really an inferior faciility).
>
> Cut the rhetoric. If you have any point, you should be able to
> show some deficiency in the Caltrans design standards, not in some
> figment of your imagination.

Besides, if "separate but equal" is the law of the land in many areas,
particularly applied to those who live beyond walled communities, I
don't see why it should apply to bikes and SUVs. They do NOT mix, just
as lions and monkeys.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

>>
>>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.
>>
>>16' lane:
>>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
>>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
>>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as
>>a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed.
>
>
> .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding
> at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally
> 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you
> a couple of feet inside the bike lane.

YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from edge
of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from edge of
pavement.


If you are less than 12 feet
> from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane)
> you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific
> hazard (which the bike lane rules allow).

Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my
speed is.


>
>
>>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing
>>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle
>>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space
>>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist
>>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist
>>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor
>>vehicles.
>
>
> The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway
> unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you
> were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you
> do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not.

I don't care about the CVC.


>
>
>>- bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor
>>vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion.
>
>
> Nonesense.


Sorry. It's true.


>
>>- bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane"
>>means that motorists need not be cautious.
>
>
> That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a
> vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want
> their fenders dinged needlessly.

So? Motorists pass bicyclists faster and closer when a bike lane is
present. They need not exhibit any caution when passing.


>
>
>>- presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether
>>bicyclists are present or not.
>
>
> Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends
> to increase the wider a lane is.

Sorry. You are wrong again.


>
>
>>The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside
>>elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable
>>position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris.
>
>
> Not true either, unless the adjacent traffic lane is very wide.> Drivers nominally guide on the lane stripe, staying a couple of
> feet inside. Whether you have a bike lane stripe or not, the
> area 12 to 16 feet from the "traffic" lane stripe will be kept
> clean. However, as a bike lane, a local jurisdiction that installed
> the bike lane then has an obligation to keep it clean, but there
> is no such obligation for a shoulder (which is not intended for
> vehicular travel).


Yea, jurisdictions on Bike Lane Fantasy Island keep bike lanes as clean
as the normal lane.

Wayne
>
>

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>>
>>
>>Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes
>>become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane.
>
>
> A bike lane is not a substandard width lane,

Yea, all lanes are 4' wide.

Are you for real?

but in any case the
> rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically
> go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a
> bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a
> bike lane in their town.

More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:

>
> Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
>

He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> [email protected] writes:

>>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
>>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
>>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
>
>
> Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> city he rode.
>

Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
>> them through bike lanes.

I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous.

Wayne

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jens Mller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
>> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
>> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.
>
> In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms
> of transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times
> higher than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to
> find the statistics.

And, of course, the leading cause of death for bicyclists and pedestrians is
getting hit by a car -- not that it's included in car fatalities, like it
would be if they were hit by a train.

For motorcycles, it's probably a toss-up between rider stupidity and car
drivers.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to
> use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic
> and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot
> on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It
> simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something
> incredibly stupid regardless.

You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues
against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated
from cars by a white line, I'd be safe."

In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely
shows where the glass and gravel begin.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>
> >>The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.
> >>
> >>16' lane:
> >>- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
> >>operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
> >>under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as
> >> a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed.
> > .... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding
> > at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally
> > 14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you
> > a couple of feet inside the bike lane.
>
> YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from
> edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from
> edge of pavement.

Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the
only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe
(on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple
of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane
stripe, which can be quite far from the curb.

>
> If you are less than 12 feet
> > from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane)
> > you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific
> > hazard (which the bike lane rules allow).
>
> Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my
> speed is.

More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4'
from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane.


> >>Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing
> >>lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle
> >>operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space
> >>since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist
> >>within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist
> >>traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor
> >>vehicles.
> > The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway
> > unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you
> > were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you
> > do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not.
>
> I don't care about the CVC.

If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable
effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike
and not driving a car.

> >>- bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor
> >>vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion.
> > Nonesense.

> Sorry. It's true.

You are delusional.

> >>- bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane"
> >>means that motorists need not be cautious.
> > That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a
> > vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want
> > their fenders dinged needlessly.
>
> So? Motorists pass bicyclists faster and closer when a bike lane is
> present. They need not exhibit any caution when passing.

Bike lanes do not make drivers speed up. What you will find, however,
is that bicyclists ride a bit further from the curb when there is a
bike lane. The drivers can probably judge their clearance from a
bicycle easier if it is to right of a bike lane stripe. If conditions
make it possible to pass as safely at a higher speed, so what? It
is no different than with a shoulder stripe (so why don't you think
that shoulder stripes are bad).

> >>- presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether
> >> bicyclists are present or not.
> > Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends
> > to increase the wider a lane is.
>
> Sorry. You are wrong again.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

> Yea, jurisdictions on Bike Lane Fantasy Island keep bike lanes as
> clean as the normal lane.

Bike lanes are as clean as traffic lanes in the town I live in.
While I haven't done an exhaustive survey, the bike lanes I've
used in San Francisco were as clean as the rest of the street.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Martin Dann writes:
>
> > No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
> > that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
> > pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
> > from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
> > similar to racism.
>
> As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase
> existed.

No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase
"normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic".
You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day
or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that.

> However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal
> speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a
> slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase
> translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to:

In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be
driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one
lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a
slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first
reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more
vehicles are queued up behind.

BTW, the laws are similar in most states (in the U.S., traffic laws
are set by state governments, not the federal government).

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott
> I also suggest you search the web for "Daniel Cadden"

Not relevant.

> It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that cycles should
> be on the main road, not segregated and pushed onto poor facilities.

Bike lanes are part of a road, including "main roads": we have them on
our expressways, at least some of them.
>
> > I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
> > It is completely dishonest.
>
> What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling facilities as a
> good idea.

No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what
you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as
long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that
I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show
where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be
installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities
don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according
the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed,
but that was before the standards existed).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
> >>
> >>
> >>Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes
> >>become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane.
> > A bike lane is not a substandard width lane,
>
> Yea, all lanes are 4' wide.
>
> Are you for real?

Are you able to read simple English? I never said they were all 4' wide,
but rather that "a bike lane does not change the rules of the road".
Do you think the existence of bike lanes makes it impossible to have a
paper copy of the "rules of the road" because the rules somehow change
from place to place within the same state?
>
> but in any case the
> > rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically
> > go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a
> > bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a
> > bike lane in their town.
>
> More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore.

Pein, you are an idiot.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> > Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
> > attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?
> >
>
> He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island.

Pein, why don't you start acting like an adult for a change.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> >>Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
> >>and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
> >>the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
> > Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
> > everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
> > any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
> > city he rode.
> >
>
> Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
> about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
> many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is
one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
"discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading
some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the
U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many
newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising
with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it.
He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend
that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out
what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course,
Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post
because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove.

Pein meanwhile is a wannabe Krygowski - about as dishonest but a bit
more crude and obvious about it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Martin Dann]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Martin Dann writes:
>>> No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
>>> that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
>>> pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
>>> from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
>>> similar to racism.

It is segregation, not racism that I was comparing to.
Read the reference I supplied.

>> As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase
>> existed.
>
> No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase
> "normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic".
> You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day
> or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that.

First you claim "normal speed of traffic" is a legal term,
then you claim it is "standard english". Which is it?
And what is "standard english". I could claim that the
lack of an Upper case E on the name of my country is as
insulting and racist as using the word ****er.

Once you start saying some traffic moves at normal speed,
and other traffic does not, you immediately get normal and
non-normal traffic.



>> However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal
>> speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a
>> slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase
>> translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to:
>
> In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be
> driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one
> lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a
> slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first
> reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more
> vehicles are queued up behind.

So when a queue of cars are moving slower than the normal
speed, do they have to pull in for cyclist to over take or
not? (Third time I have asked).

> No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what
> you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as
> long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that
> I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show
> where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be
> installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities
> don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according
> the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed,
> but that was before the standards existed).

I have used many cycling lanes and routes in my country. I
can honestly state that none of them are as safe as using
the road, in my experience.

Even properly designed facilities, swept and maintained
regularly, increase the danger. If I keep just to these
facilities I find them full of people and animals.
If I have to go on the road in places where these
facilities do not exist, then car drivers won't be
expecting cyclists, and the danger goes up.

Cycling on the road is the only answer.

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to
> > use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic
> > and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot
> > on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It
> > simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something
> > incredibly stupid regardless.
>
> You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues
> against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated
> from cars by a white line, I'd be safe."

You don't seem to understand that I never espoused your strawmen, or
at least that is what you are pretending to do.

> In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely
> shows where the glass and gravel begin.

Not true (the part about "glass and gravel"), but spinning is all you
know how to do.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB